This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.
If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.
If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spaceflight, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spaceflight on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpaceflightWikipedia:WikiProject SpaceflightTemplate:WikiProject Spaceflightspaceflight articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
This article is a formerfeatured list candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.
User:Daran just redirected "men who walked..." here. --Menchi 01:39, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Can this page include a discussion and/or link to a discussion about contraversey surrounding the authenticity of the US landing on the moon - the political ramifications of the landing, and the space race?
Left earth orbit? Why doesn't the moon just fly off into space, then? XD
Was there actually an Apollo 21 flight scheduled? I have always read the series was originally to end with Apollo 20, until 18, 19, & 20 got axed. --Matthew 00:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See Cancelled Apollo missions. In short, no, but if you really squinted at the schedules in a three-month period in 1968 and crossed your fingers you might have been able to expect one. Shimgray | talk | 01:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relevance of age today
I don't see any relevance to the age today column under People who have walked on the Moon. I suggest that it be removed. -- Mufka (u)(t)(c) 14:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. -- Mufka (u)(t)(c) 17:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the "USN" label on Neil Armstrong's entry in the list because he was a civilian when he joined the astronaut corps. Other such astronauts' entries likely need to be fixed, too. YLee (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a reference for this?--RadioFan (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cite added. YLee (talk) 02:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Engineers"
I have twice reverted Engology's edits describing the 12 astronauts who've walked on the moon as "Engineers." I object due to the following reasons:
Inaccuracy. Harrison Schmitt is a geologist by training, not an engineer. Yes, I know there is such a thing as engineering geology, but there is no evidence Schmitt has ever worked in or studied that field.
Irrelevance. Of course the other 11 astronauts were (trained as) engineers, as an engineering degree was required to be a member of all of the early astronaut classes (except Schmitt and other scientist-astronauts). One might as well also say that they were all previous or active-duty of the United States military, or four-year college graduates.
Misplacement. Even if all 12 moonwalkers were engineers, this fact really wouldn't belong in the summary paragraph, anyway; it'd be better suited to the section specifically discussing them. YLee (talk) 13:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now I see that Engology is systematically adding "an Engineer" to the summary sections of every moonwalker's article. This seems very dubious to me. While, as I note above, all of the 12 moonwalkers (again, except Schmitt) received engineering degrees, to describe all of them as "Engineers" (complete with capitalization) the lead sentence—even before "astronaut"—does not seem proper. Alan Bean, for example, retired from NASA in order to become a professional artist, but that isn't mentioned in the summary section at all! YLee (talk) 13:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Astronaut Harrison Schmitt is a geologist and this entry was an error. You seem to think that it is OK for him to be referred to as a Geologist in the lead in, but it is NOT OK for other Astronauts to be referred to as Engineers in the lead in. Where is the consistency? You reverting these edits for no good reason is disruptive and responding to personal whims. I am quite entitled to add the word *Engineer* considering it is OK to include the words, Geologist, Physician, Physicist, Astronaut, etc., in lead ins. Alan Bean is not yet an Artist, so it would not be appropriate to add it as an entry for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Engology (talk • contribs) 21:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An engineering degree != Engineer as a profession. The lede sentence should describe the person in the most accurate and relevant way. If someone who has a BS in Engineering but never worked as an engineer, never held the title of engineer, was never certifed as a professional enginer - it would be misleading to refer to them as an "Engineer". Rillian (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If he has an approved degree in engineering, he is an Engineer and he will always be an Engineer whether he practises as one or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Engology (talk • contribs) 17:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, the thousands of people with journalism degrees who never worked as a journalist are somehow still "Journalists" (capital J and all). Engineering is a profession, not just a degree. Rillian (talk) 02:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. TJRC (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Space Race
There was no space race. Khrushchev and kennedy wanted to go "to the moon" together a join effort. The idea there was a space race was lie.
What does space have to do with the cold war?
Why has no other country sent a man to the moon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.244.74.9 (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look up Sputnik along with Cold War (or even better, the excellent Wikipedia article on the Space Race itself) and you'll get a better understanding and sense of the Space Race (which didn't exist, naturally.) 122.26.51.203 (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What? The assertion that there was no Space Race is as absurd as asserting that the conspiracy theorist claims that the Moon landings never happened at all.
.
I see these posts are a couple of years old, but I still have to ask--how old are you people? I lived through these times, and there is no doubt there was a Space Race, and that the Moon effort was politically motivated, and in direct competition with the Russian effort. This occurred during the height of the Cold War, and the propaganda value of space accomplishments was trumpeted loud and wide by both sides. There was a simultaneous arms race, with a vast proliferation of nuclear weapons and delivery systems--bombers, submarines, missile silos. The Cuban Missile Crisis, which nearly precipitated a disastrous nuclear war, occurred scant years before Apollo, and during the spin up to the Mercury and Gemini programs. We killed three astronauts in the rush to ready the Apollo capsule as quickly as possible (in the inadequate and dangerous capsule posthumously named Apollo 1). If there was no race, why did we hurry so to do that?
.
Whatever wishes for conciliation with Russia Kennedy might have had were ended with two bullets to his head, and they certainly weren't shared by his successors. Khrushchev dropped the idea after the assasination. Had Kennedy lived, who knows what might have transpired, but he didn't, and both races continued unababted. It was most definitely a direct competition with the USSR, which makes it a race by definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glinness (talk • contribs) 20:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Men
I hope I'm a good feminist, really I do. But at the end of the day, they were all men. The "human", "people" business is simply ridiculous and beings to grate after a while. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.50.67 (talk) 07:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, in your judgment then, only women are "human" or "people?" How odd!122.26.51.203 (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that only men went. Not human people of both genders—men alone. "Human" and "people" are collective terms that include women, who were not included. Clear? 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:844E:7F62:FF7F:FFEE (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is The Apollo Effort Being American In Origin Worthy Of Inclusion On This Page??
I am quite surprised to find that there is not a single reference on this entire page about the fact that the Apollo series of missions were American in origin, design and execution. Don't you think this fact deserves some recognition on this page, at least in the opening paragraph?
If and when the Chinese, Indians, Japanese or any other natioality successfully fly and return their astronauts to the moon, I am SURE Wikipedia will mention their nationality. So why not give these brave Americans the credit their incredible (and and after 42 years, unmatched) accomplishment deserves? It's hardly a violation of the so-called "global perspective" Wikipedia strives to adhere to for us to point out that every human thus far who has ever walked upon earth's satellite has been an American. Right? Thanks122.26.51.203 (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apollo astronauts who flew to the Moon without landing
In this section, the text says that 12 people have been close to the Moon without landing, however the table lists 14 people. I assume that the table is correct and the text wrong, but I don't want to make the edit, because I don't know the factual accuracy here. What worries me is that the Saturn V page was just edited to change the total number of people flown to the Moon from 24 to 26[1] so there is something wrong here. Can someone who is sure about this make the necessary edit? Thanks! --MarkPos(User Page | Talk | Contribs) 10:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that the 3rd paragraph of the article says "twenty-four" people have visited the moon implying 12 who landed and 12 who orbited, so I'm even more confused about the 14 people listed in the table. --MarkPos(User Page | Talk | Contribs) 10:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12 people went to the moon but never landed. The 14 people in the table include Young and Cernan, who did not land on their first flight to the Moon, but landed on later flights. --Zundark (talk) 10:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's clear, thanks! I should have noticed that from the tables, but I allowed myself to be misled by the edit to the Saturn V article (thanks for reverting that). --MarkPos(User Page | Talk | Contribs) 12:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the table to just number the twelve who never landed. Hopefully this is clearer. (If not, it probably wants to be 15, so that it adds up to 27 - I've seen 14 quoted elsewhere, which confused the hell out of me.) Antrim Kate (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The total of 24 men to the Moon is correct. Twelve men walked on the Moon--Apollo 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17. For each of those, one man remained in the Command Module, for six more, 12 + 6 = 18. Add three men each for Apollo 8 and 13, so 18 + 6 = 24 men who have flown to the Moon. Apollo 17 was the last lunar mission. Twelve walked on the Moon, and twelve did not. The ratio would have been 14:10, had the Apollo 13 Service Module not have exploded mid-flight, but those two couldn't land, so the ratio remains 12:12. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glinness (talk • contribs) 19:46, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's 24, but not for the reasons you state. You're essentially saying there were 8 missions, with 3 men on each; Apollo 10 also travelled to the moon, which makes 9 missions. The reason it's only 24 is that - as Zundark states above - 3 men (Young, Cernan and Lovell) went twice. Is this not clear from the article? Antrim Kate (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move Grissom to a different section?
Should Grissom be moved from "From the Mercury Seven" section to "Other astronauts who trained for Apollo"? Same thing for White and Chaffee. There were others who were assigned as prime crewmembers but did not fly, and are listed in the lower section. Bubba73You talkin' to me? 05:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no, I don't think that's a good idea. The intent was to put Grissom, White and Chaffee with the flight crews because their case is different from the others in that they were actually assigned to an iminently planned flight, and made it to within one month of their scheduled launch. The others might have been put on the flight roster, but never made it that far. They were removed from it due to factors such as their own performance (Cooper), the delay caused by the Apollo 13 failure, and the cancellation of the last missions. The only thing that kept Grissom, White and Chaffee from flying was that their spacecraft killed them. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: There's also no evidence Givens was assigned to a prime crew; he was on the Apollo 7 support crew, which did not necessarily put him in the rotation as a backup crew slot might have. JustinTime55 (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What do the different colours in the list rows stand for? /Kiewbra (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently they're just used as separators, to group the men who flew together on the same flight crew. JustinTime55 (talk) 17:11, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in the first table - the missions that landed - the colours just alternate between each crew; in the second table the colours correspond to those in the first table, for the non-landing crewmember, which means that Apollo 13 gets a different colour because it doesn't feature in the original table. Then Apollos 8 and 10 are just given alternating colours so they're different to the others. Maybe these two should be different again to show that they didn't land, but that would only make it more complicated... Antrim Kate (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. There's no logical way ANYONE could figure that out without looking in the discussion section. I'm changing Apollo 13 to Blue for consistency's sake. littlebum2002 17:41, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Navy & Airforce Vs Marines
I though it might be good to distinguish the astronauts more specifically as some are from the special core called 'marines' as opposed to 'navy' or 'air-force' Bensational (talk) 01:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC) 09-sep-2013[reply]
Where are you getting your information from? The tabulated list includes only the astronauts who flew in the Apollo program, and none of them was in the Marine corps. The only one mentioned here who was in the Marine Corps seems to be Clifton Williams, who was killed in training. None of these men has his service listed, and that's probably not notable enough to include (readers can find their services when they click the wikilinks.) Are you maybe thinking of Marine astronaut John Glenn? he is not here because he didn't participate in Apollo, having left the space program shortly after his Mercury flight. I don't think many of the classical astronauts were Marines (perhaps that's different today.) JustinTime55 (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This list doesn't cover Skylab and the ASTP, but if you do count them as "Apollo" then there were three former-Marine astronauts who flew - Jack Lousma on Skylab 3, Gerald Carr on Skylab 4, and Vance Brand on ASTP (though he had been recruited as a civilian). Andrew Gray (talk) 18:34, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, agree to leave as is. Bensational (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete
When I start to read, and begin to use, an article titled "List of ..." I assume it is complete. As well as having a warning that this article needs more source citations, it should begin with a warning that this list is not complete. E.g. William R. Pogue. I expect to find many other names when I get a good NASA document source.
EdgarDurbin — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdgarDurbin (talk • contribs) 21:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Numbers vs text
The first paragraph uses text for numbers, but the 3rd and 4th paragraphs use the number. We should have uniformity. Alan Davidson (talk) 03:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This policy says either may be used. But it would be preferable to be consistent within the same article. Alan Davidson (talk) 04:44, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Apollo astronauts. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Quite remarkable that 1/3 of them died within almost 2 years, should be mentioned. 94.247.89.102 (talk) 10:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not all that remarkable. They're all at the age where, actuarially, they'd be expected to be dying. Not only that, adding it to the article would be WP:OR. TJRC (talk) 23:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Second seat"
The term "second seat" needs a definition. My assumption is that it refers to an astronaut who is not the mission commander. On Gemini, that's simple enough. On Apollo, it's not clear what it means. Middle Apollo seat/LM pilot? I'm not against space jockey talk, which this is, but we need to make it clear to readers. It's not clear to me. I don't see it defined in either the Gemini or Apollo main articles. The term is overused in this article and should replaced (or parenthetically defined) in several places with the word "pilot"--assuming that's correct. A one-sentence definition of the terms commander, pilot, LM pilot should be placed in an early part of the article as an aid to readers. DonFB (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
